[Crapshoot]

One of the problem is that continued voter stupidity is reinforced- see Puckett, Kirby or Dawson Andre - you talk them up enough in their career, give them awards they don't deserve, and then use that as the baseball to argue- " look, he won the MVP" ! This is almost as idiotic as the veteran's comittee electing a bunch of old schlubs, but i digress. Mussina got screwed on the Cy Young in 2001, when he was significantly better than Clemens, but some idiot saw a 20-3 record- and voila, it was over. We'll see this flaw in 10 years when Bobby Abreau, one of the 10 best players in baseball the last 4 years, gets screwed over because he didnt make all-star teams or because he never won an MVP- while someone like The notion of letting these imbecils reinforce their own stupidty is one of the many flaws with the HOF procedure.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

A player's stats are a record of his performance. Sabermetrics is a means to analyze performance. Should a player's performance be the main priority for election to the HOF?

Seems a silly question.

You're right, because the answer is obviously "no". A quick look at the voting habits of the BBWAA since they started voting on this reveals that. It seems that the primary criterion for a player's entrance into the HOF is his fame. Now, if you were making a "greatest players of all time" list, I would be inclined to agree with you.

[Johnny Slick]

FWIW, I think both the Hawk and Kirby belong in the Hall because of the whole "defined baseball for a city for a significant length of time" thing. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Ken Keltner List was the best thing to come out of The Politics of Glory, not the Hall of Fame Monitor (although that's a fun tool too).

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

You're right, because the answer is obviously "no". A quick look at the voting habits of the BBWAA since they started voting on this reveals that. It seems that the primary criterion for a player's entrance into the HOF is his fame.

I'm doubtful the BBWAA voter's would agree with this assessment.

The theory espoused above certainly doesn't explain the Hawk or Dale Murphy's continued absence from the Hall or Ryno's time on the ballot. Quick seems to be the key word above.

[Luis_Rivera]

dh, the only problem I have with using the WARP numbers is that they give a very, very rough picture.

Look at the NRA/DERA of the guys around Kaat's ~110 WARP:

Ruffing: 4.35/4.38
Plank: 3.99/3.99
Newhouser: 3.71/3.69
Feller: 3.83/3.94

And now Kitty's: 4.58/4.63

While he's close to Ruffing, it just doesn't seem right to me to put Kaat in the same category as Plank, Newhouser, and Feller.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

dh, the only problem I have with using the WARP numbers is that they give a very, very rough picture.

WARP gives a fine view of a player's career value.

DERA is a rate state and is a measure of a player's dominance.

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

While he's close to Ruffing, it just doesn't seem right to me to put Kaat in the same category as Plank, Newhouser, and Feller.

If you are going on peak value, then I'd agree. There are two paths to the Hall of Fame. Koufax and Dizzy are the extreme of peak. Sutton and Kaat are fellas who took the career route to greatness.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Look at the NRA/DERA of the guys around Kaat's ~110 WARP:

Ruffing: 4.35/4.38
Plank: 3.99/3.99
Newhouser: 3.71/3.69
Feller: 3.83/3.94

And now Kitty's: 4.58/4.63

Also, if you are going to use NRA/DERA that's been adjusted for all time instead of season, then you should note that Jim Kaat's translated career numbers are 290-208 with a 3.87 ERA. Looks Cooperstown to moi.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Also, if you are going to use NRA/DERA that's been adjusted for all time instead of season, then you should note that Jim Kaat's translated career numbers are 290-208 with a 3.87 ERA. Looks Cooperstown to moi.

Question on this as I really haven't used the translated pitching statistics on BP until recently when I saw a post you made talking about them...

How does Kitty's translated ERA come out better than Ruffing's while his all-time adjusted NRA/DERA don't?

Wouldn't they be proportional to each other?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Wouldn't they be proportional to each other?

They probably would be if NRA/DERA and the Davenport translations were created by the same person.

This would be an interesting question to lob Clay Davenport's way at BB Pro.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

They probably would be if NRA/DERA and the Davenport translations were created by the same person.

This would be an interesting question to lob Clay Davenport's way at BB Pro.

Ahhh... ok, so it's a completely different translation.

Feel free to take that initiative, dh... you understand it a lot better than I. I'd be interested to know what the little differences are between the translations, though.

[Luis_Rivera]

Speaking of ignorance in the media. I caught a nice gem from one of Boston's "well respected" mediots, Ted Sarandis this past week when I was driving home from my buddy's house at night.

Ted was waxing idiotic about how he'd take Jim Rice over Manny Ramirez any day of the week and twice on Sunday. When a caller with some sense called in questioning him on this, Ted was like, "look at the numbers!" and started rambling about total bases, RBI, and several other raw numbers.

He also stated that Jim's 1978 was the best season ever had by a Red Sox hitter other than Yaz's triple crown 1967 season. I'm sure a couple guys named Ted and Wade would have several things to say about that.

That's just an example of the things that I hear/read on a weekly basis other than votes, awards, and the like that make me call the writers ignorant. They may be a very, very smart group people. However, they are very, very ignorant group of smart people when it comes to measuring performance in baseball.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Speaking of ignorance in the media. I caught a nice gem from one of Boston's "well respected" mediots, Ted Sarandis this past week when I was driving home from my buddy's house at night.

Ted was waxing idiotic about how he'd take Jim Rice over Manny Ramirez

That's an interesting comparison as Ramirez and Rice career WARP1 totals are virtually indentical. 'Course, Manny's accumulated this value in thousands fewer at-bats.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

I'm doubtful the BBWAA voter's would agree with this assessment.

Huh? You think they believe they're voting people in based on their statistical records? That certainly does not jibe with their actual voting records.

The theory espoused above certainly doesn't explain the Hawk or Dale Murphy's continued absence from the Hall or Ryno's time on the ballot. Quick seems to be the key word above.

Can't explain Murphy except to say that he had his two best seasons during a time when the league averages weren't so high as they've been lately, so folks don't remember him as being all that right now. I suspect that in time he'll make it, especially as we move further and further away from the excesses of the late 90s.

As for Ryno, what exactly is your beef? That it took him 3 whole years to get in instead of 1? How is that even an argument?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

As for Ryno, what exactly is your beef? That it took him 3 whole years to get in instead of 1? How is that even an argument?

Your contention is that fame is the main prerequisite for election. Was Sandberg more famous three years later?

LOL

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Your contention is that fame is the main prerequisite for election. Was Sandberg more famous three years later?

1. The people he ran against. I, for one, have a hard time saying he should have gotten in instead of Paul Molitor or Dennis Eckersley or Gary Carter or Eddie Murray or Ozzie Smith. I know, you can put up to 10 names on a ballot. However, the rule right now seems to be that only 2 people go in a year, tops. As for '02...
2. The stupid (yes, I said stupid) unwritten rule that much of the BBWAA has that says you only elect the best of the best on the first ballot.

LOL

Yes, that's right! Because one guy took 3 years to get in instead of 1, that makes the entire process a sham!

Take a look at the history of the Hall. There have been MANY players who got in far later than they deserved to get there. That's been happening ever since the first year of voting.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Yes, that's right! Because one guy took 3 years to get in instead of 1, that makes the entire process a sham!

No, it just suggests that your fame theory is bollocks. If you can muster the energy for more than a quick glance, look at some of the people Joe DiMaggio finished behind before being elected.

Who's said the HOF process is a sham? Could it be much improved if the writers and vet's committe took the time to educate themselves? Certainly.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

No, it just suggests that your fame theory is bollocks. If you can muster the energy for more than a quick glance, look at some of the people Joe DiMaggio finished behind before being elected.

According to what I can muster from Baseball Reference, DiMag retired in 1951 and was voted in during his first year of eligibility, 1955. And if you look at all the folks voted in between '52 and '55, what they all have in common (except for Dizzy Dean) is that they're from an era prior to Joltin' Joe's. Clearly, what the voters were saying at that time was "let's give the current players a couple years; we need to get the Dead Ball Era superstars in there while they're still alive."

Who's said the HOF process is a sham? Could it be much improved if the writers and vet's committe took the time to educate themselves? Certainly.

But here's the point:

1. They won't, and
2. They never have done so in the past.

What you and Luis are trying to do, in essence, is create a Hall of Fame that never actually existed in the first place.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

According to what I can muster from Baseball Reference, DiMag retired in 1951 and was voted in during his first year of eligibility, 1955.

1953 Election


Name             Votes 	   PCT
Dizzy Dean 	   209 	   79.17
Al Simmons 	   199 	   75.38
Bill Terry 	   191 	   72.35
Bill Dickey 	   179 	   67.80
Rabbit Maranville  164 	   62.12
Dazzy Vance 	   150 	   56.82
Ted Lyons 	   139 	   52.65
Joe DiMaggio 	   117 	   44.32

1954 Election

Name                    Votes    PCT
Rabbit Maranville 	209 	82.94
Bill Dickey 	        202 	80.16
Bill Terry 	        195     77.38
Joe DiMaggio 	        175 	69.44

[Johnny Slick]

Well, thanks... by disproving one point, you actually made the other one for me.

Originally Posted by darkhorse

1953 Election


Name             Votes 	   PCT
Dizzy Dean 	   209 	   79.17
Al Simmons 	   199 	   75.38
Bill Terry 	   191 	   72.35
Bill Dickey 	   179 	   67.80
Rabbit Maranville  164 	   62.12
Dazzy Vance 	   150 	   56.82
Ted Lyons 	   139 	   52.65
Joe DiMaggio 	   117 	   44.32

Dimaggio isn't in that upper pantheon! We can't elect him on the first ballot!

1954 Election

Name                    Votes    PCT
Rabbit Maranville 	209 	82.94
Bill Dickey 	        202 	80.16
Bill Terry 	        195     77.38
Joe DiMaggio 	        175 	69.44

We need to get Rabbit Maranville and Bill Dickey and Bill Terry in the Hall before it's too late! Joltin' Joe can wait another year!

I'll repeat a statement I began to make with another player you mentioned: if the best you can come up with are two examples of deserving players who got in their 3rd year instead of their first, then you really are showing that the exceptions prove the rule.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

And if you look at all the folks voted in between '52 and '55, what they all have in common (except for Dizzy Dean) is that they're from an era prior to Joltin' Joe's.

Clearly, what the voters were saying at that time was "let's give the current players a couple years; we need to get the Dead Ball Era superstars in there while they're still alive."

Harry Heilmann 1914-32
Paul Waner 1926-45
Rabbit Maranville 1912-35
Bill Dickey 1928-46
Bill Terry 1923-36
Al Simmons 1924-44
Joe DiMaggio 1936-51

Interesting that only two of these players spent any portion of their career during the dead ball era.

It seems even more clear that thou art grasping at straw.